| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
   |
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:32:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Scorpyn
So you do consider it to be viable to redefine the usage of the language.
Hardly a redefinition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
_
|
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 12:55:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Scorpyn on 19/03/2011 12:56:41
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Scorpyn
So you do consider it to be viable to redefine the usage of the language.
Hardly a redefinition...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
If ppl use the language in a certain way and you suddenly expect them to use it in another way, how is that not a redefinition?
Edit : Since this is the kind of circle arguments that can keep going forever I'll stop posting now.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 14:38:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Akita T on 19/03/2011 14:45:46
Originally by: Scorpyn
If ppl use the language in a certain way and you suddenly expect them to use it in another way, how is that not a redefinition?
Because that particular use has been in circulation longer than anybody today has been alive, so calling it a "redefinition" is really stretching it.
Uncommon use, granted... but redefinition ? No way.
PRACTICAL example - not so long ago, the common use of the term "user" had a drug-related connotation... but for you, me, and many other computer-oriented people today, the term "user" first brings to mind something completely different.
Therefore, when you're in a computer forum or filling out a computer-related quiz, seeing the word "user" shouldn't make you think of somebody who is addicted to drugs, but rather somebody who uses a computer. Just the same, if you're in a drug rehab clinic or on a 12-step forum, whenever you see "user" and DON'T think of somebody who has a drug problem, that's the weird part.
So... when you're filling out a philosophy quiz... don't you think the EXPECTED meaning of phrasing is the one typical of philosophical discourse ?
The fact YOU are not FAMILIAR with the appropriate conventions is a completely separate issue.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
_
|
Scorpyn
Caldari
Warp Ghosts Omega
Spectres of the Deep
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 14:53:00 -
[64]
You consider the correct usage to be the exact definition of the language.
I consider it to be wrong if the question can be misunderstood because of how the language is used.
No amount of arguing is going to change the fact that both of us consider our own point of view to be more important, so please just drop it, because further discussion is pointless.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 15:03:00 -
[65]
Meh.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
_
|
DuffmanPeter
Perpetua Umbra
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 21:07:00 -
[66]
Edited by: DuffmanPeter on 19/03/2011 21:12:14
Edited by: DuffmanPeter on 19/03/2011 21:11:45
lol you guys and your language games...
Philosophical joke: "How about we play a language game where you shut the hell up!"
btw 27% on test
Edit: We all adhere to language. It is a context on which philosophy is grounded. It changes.
Also moral relativism is a waste of time as well as cultural relativism. We all take certain moral things to be true. Self defense is morally right if your life is being threatened when you have done nothing. R.a.p.e (stupid filter) is seen as morally wrong. With moral relativism this goes out the window.
Duffman can't breathe!!!! OH NOOO!!!!
There are many Duffmen, don't tell the children... It's disillusioning!
Duffman can never die!! Only the actors that play him!!
|
Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
|
Posted - 2011.03.19 23:34:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Vogue on 19/03/2011 23:35:12
Language is like a coloured beam of light reflecting, refracting, loosing some tones and gaining new tones. People are agents\mediums that refract the colour of beam of light - a supposition. Events and their interpretation are also agents. Interpretation of events over linear time is also an agent. Linear history cascades agents again over the previous a priori.
..................................................
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 03:38:00 -
[68]
Haha... The BEST troll web application EVER 
|
Pan Crastus
Anti-Metagaming League
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 05:05:00 -
[69]
20%, but I did see it coming because the intentions of the author were so obvious. For example, I do not drive "unnecessarily", who's to judge? It saves me a lot of time. The statement "The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends" is rather pointless because people find a purpose even in picking their nose. No contradiction there ...
Regarding atheism, the author got it wrong: For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).
Atheism in the narrow sense means belief that god (or gods) does not exist. That is not the same as rejecting the belief in gods due to absence of evidence.
How to PVP: 1. buy ISK with GTCs, 2. fit cloak, learn aggro mechanics, 3. buy second account for metagaming
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 05:26:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Antihrist Pripravnik on 20/03/2011 05:31:33
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Atheism in the narrow sense means belief that god (or gods) does not exist. That is not the same as rejecting the belief in gods due to absence of evidence.
Yeah. I've noticed that too. The author forgot all about agnosticism. Being an agnostic myself, I called the whole thing a skilful troll.
|
|
|
Vogue
Short Bus Pole Dancers
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 21:18:00 -
[71]
The typical binary 'I believe \ Not believe - In God' for christians has recently being unconsciously wrapped around around material consumption and luxury. So people immediately think - 'Good god?, what do I get off the shelf from this'.
A more plural view is Gnosticism which is not solidly defined but broadly goes along these lines:-
(copy pasta)
The Gnostics posited an original spiritual unity that came to be split into a plurality.
As a result of the precosmic division the universe was created. This was done by a leader possessing inferior spiritual powers and who often resembled the Old Testament Jehovah.
In the cosmos, space and time have a malevolent character and may be personified as demonic beings separating man from God.
For man, the universe is a vast prison. He is enslaved both by the physical laws of nature and by such moral laws as the Mosaic code.
Mankind may be personified as Adam, who lies in the deep sleep of ignorance, his powers of spiritual self-awareness stupefied by materiality.
Within each natural man is an "inner man," a fallen spark of the divine substance. Since this exists in each man, we have the possibility of awakening from our stupefaction.
What effects the awakening is not obedience, faith, or good works, but knowledge.
Before the awakening, men undergo troubled dreams.
Man does not attain the knowledge that awakens him from these dreams by cognition but through revelatory experience, and this knowledge is not information but a modification of the sensate being.
The awakening (i.e., the salvation) of any individual is a cosmic event.
When I dream I am awake
..................................................
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 23:48:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Akita T on 20/03/2011 23:54:17
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Atheism in the narrow sense means belief that god (or gods) does not exist. That is not the same as rejecting the belief in gods due to absence of evidence.
Yeah. I've noticed that too. The author forgot all about agnosticism. Being an agnostic myself, I called the whole thing a skilful troll.
You call that a troll ? Dammit man, PHILOSOPHY is a big troll convention, didn't you know that ?
...
How about this : you mean the opposite, right ?
Agnostics are actually those that hold a belief, while atheists simply follow logic.
Let me explain 
Since any god's existence has yet to be proven, and since extraordinary claims need proof to become valid, atheism is the position that one should logically conclude that believing in the existence of any gods is unsubstantiated... unless proof is given about their existence first, of course (but that hasn't happened yet for any god or gods).
It's a very subtle difference between "I (choose to) believe this god you're telling me about does not exist" and "I don't believe your story about the existence of this god (because you can't prove it)", but there is a difference.
By the way, all "true believers" of any religion in the world are actually mostly atheists... towards most, if not all the OTHER religions except the one they're following and its branches.
Not agnostic, atheist.
Agnosticism is the position that ultimately, the presence or absence of any gods is unprovable either way, so you can never know for sure if any gods might exist.
In other words, that arguing for or against religion is ultimately pointless, and that you really don't care whether any of the many particular gods really exists or not.
An agnostic has to actively choose to not believe in any particular gods, since from an agnostic's standpoint the possibility of any god or gods existing or no gods existing is pretty much a wash.
Therefore:
* an agnostic (the one superficially considered as being without a belief) is actually the one that has to have some faith in his choice, a choice he himself concludes can't be proven so it can't be based on fact... while
* an atheist (the one which superficially you could think it requires faith) is really the one that simply follows the rules of logic, nothing more, nothing less, no faith required.
P.S. ...unless you consider that following logic is "just faith" too (and you'd actually sort of have a point since, well, it's complicated, but you can't prove logic to be logical JUST by using logic, that's the gist of it but there's much more to be said... so... yeah, like I said, it's complicated).
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
_
|
Tony SoXai
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 23:33:00 -
[73]
God exists no matter what anyone says.
Is it the same god known throughout history? I seriously doubt it, but whatever created the universe IS god, or perhaps it is the universe itself that is god. Whatever was the catalyst for the creation of everything is god.
And that is the truth.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 23:35:00 -
[74]
Let's not cross from Philosophy to Religion, ok ?
The former is fine, the latter is not.
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
_
|
M'ktakh
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 23:37:00 -
[75]
Sigh.
An atheists sees the measured data with regards to God(s), and concludes, based partly on intuition, or if you wll, faith, that the current dataset does not support the exsistance of God(s).
An agnostis sees that dataset and concludes, aslo based on intuition and assumptions, that more measurements are needed.
Why you would want to describe one interpretation to be fundamentally different from the other is beyond me.
|
ARES 003
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 00:09:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Akita T
Let's not cross from Philosophy to Religion, ok ?
The former is fine, the latter is not.
Akita T is god commander of forum!
|
Qanael Radlari
Caldari
Kinetic Vector
|
Posted - 2011.03.22 03:37:00 -
[77]
I am 27% self-contradictory.
Not too bad, I'd say.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |